The Taming of the Shrew

If you want a slapstick, obvious "Shrew," don't waste time, go directly to Zeffirelli's overstuffed, overdecorated jamboree of shtick. OTOH, this production is actually about people, who they are and why they act that way. The cast here may be less star-studded than the other version, but is uniformly funny and very much worth watching.

Director Jonathan Miller brings his background as a neurologist into play here to make sure that the characters are not mere eccentric puppets, but are psychologically well-grounded. Sarah Badel gets the palm as Katherina. She doesn't just play the anger and violence of sibling rivalry, she also shows the pain and bewilderment of living in a world where everybody loves her sister more. John Cleese starts off uncertainly, underplaying the verse and slow to abandon Basil Fawlty's tics as he establishes the character of Petruchio, but later he grows in the part and is quite warm and human by the end. In fact, the whole play closes with much greater love and humanity than usual.

The rest of the cast is never bad, and occasionally quite brilliant. Anthony Pedley's Tranio is beautifully done, as is John Franklyn Robbins' Baptista, and Frank Thornton's Gremio leaves "Are You Being Served?" completely behind. Jonathan Cecil knows that he has a funny face and tries a little hard, but his Hortensio never breaks context with the rest of the play. Sharp-eyed viewers will recognize Angus Lennie (Mole in "The Great Escape"), Joan Hickson (Miss Marple) and John Bird ("Barnaby Spoot and the Exploding Whoopee Cushion").

The beautiful but spare decor is BBC Old Masters. There are some bewildering moments when a Vermeer room is invaded by riotous brawling, but that's probably a good thing. Occasionally a gag misfires, for as Groucho says, "All the jokes can't be good." But the overall impression is very positive. Altogether recommendable.

Miller's production of Taming of the Shrew had a shortcoming it shared with many of the other BBC Shakespeare series productions; It was produced as a theatrical piece and not as video/film. This was more than offset, however, by the brilliant performance of John Cleese as Petruchio. Cleese played Kate's suitor with an understated, british style that at once illuminated the bard's words and drew a direct line between Shakespeare and Monty Python. Listen to him trail off on his 'Think you a little din can daunt my ears' speech and you will understand that humor has not really changed in 400 years.

Essentially, up until the last hundred or so years, women were property of their husbands and had little or no hope of having control over their own lives. But it does not follow that a woman in such circumstances would be docile by nature. Any woman can make a man happy or miserable depending on how she is managed. This play is a success story about how one man uses psychology to pave his way into a fortune and a prize wife. John Cleese is such an ingenious casting choice for the character of Petruchio in this still-relevant tale of the nature of men and women. Not only for his comedic dryness, but also for his advantage of size in portraying a blustery domineering character. If you admire him in his Python work and are afraid of Shakespeare, simply watch the first 10 minutes of this piece and if you are not captivated, scan forward to Cleese's powerful rendering of Petruchio's soliloquy. He ruins any other actor's chance at improving on his performance. On the other hand, ff you find Shakespeare to contain perennial truths and keen illustrations on the Nature of Mankind, then you will particularly enjoy the perfection of this version. The other actors don't ignorantly recite their lines, but truly convey their meaning through inflection and phrasing. Since Shakespeare often used artful and obscure language even by the standards of his time (this truth is mocked by the "knock me" sequence between Petruchio and Grumio), and gave no notes or stage direction to specifically instruct sarcasm or anger or cluelessness, it is a credit to the company when a Shakespeare play is skillfully revealed to a modern audience, as this one is. Further, the way this play is photographed is so masterfully fluid and economically managed it would not be difficult to fail to notice that the whole of the first 22 minutes is performed on the same 30x50 space.

As far as I'm concerned, this rendering of Taming of the Shrew is the gold standard by which all performances will be measured.

Unlike Taylor, Burton, and Zefferelli, who run roughshod over Shakespere's script and chew the scenery like buffoons; Jonathon Miller's intelligent direction and John Cleese's droll performance illuminate the true depth of the play. Cleese is ever mindful of the brilliance of Katherine's intellect and seduces rather than browbeats her to be his love. While at the same time being seduced by her mind and deeply loving heart. Not a farce as it is most often produced, but a true battle of wits, where both combatants win.

I recently studied this play in Brit Lit, and I definitely think that even though this version might be a little slower than the Zefferelli version, it is better. The Zefferelli version reverts back to the physical, cheap humor that Shakespeare obviously steers clear of, because in his day there were a number of those kinds of plays out there, but they were cheap, superficial plays. Also, Zefferelli leaves out the falcon soliloquey. I think that John Cleese is just a genius with comedy, and I am also a big fan of Frank Thorton. Besides that, I think that the makers of this film understood the real themes of Taming, and tried to portray them in the movie, as opposed to Zefferelli, who added extraneous things to make it more "amusing", but thus led it further away from Shakespeare's true meaning.